[ RadSafe ] [Nuclear News] Areva Targets Australian Uranium to Feed Nuclear Boom

[Sandy Perle]

Index:

Areva Targets Australian Uranium to Feed Nuclear Boom
DTE faces nuclear fuel deadline
Activists protest Rosatom´s plans to build new nuclear power plants
Japanese nuclear reactor shuts down -Kyodo
Energy Solutions Sees Bright Future in Nuclear
Iran rejects claims of delayed payments for Russian-built NPP
British nuke agency fined for waste leaks
-----------------------------------------------------------

Areva Targets Australian Uranium to Feed Nuclear Boom

Feb. 19 (Bloomberg) -- Areva SA, the world's biggest maker of nuclear 
power plants, plans to boost its uranium reserves by buying 
Australian deposits or securing alliances with producers there amid 
soaring demand for the metal used in atomic reactors. 

Areva, already the world's third-biggest supplier of uranium, wants 
to double production by 2010, Philippe Portella, managing director of 
the French company's Australian uranium mining and exploration unit, 
said in an interview. 

``If we want to increase our production very rapidly, acquisition is 
part of our strategy,'' said Adelaide-based Portella, who was 
previously Areva's chief geologist in Paris. ``It's not only 
Australia. It's worldwide.'' 

Areva, based in the French capital, aims to expand uranium production 
after prices doubled in 12 months, spurred by rising demand for 
electricity. Worldwide spending on nuclear power is forecast to 
exceed $200 billion by 2030, according to the Paris-based 
International Energy Agency. 

Shares of Areva, which is controlled by the French government, rose 
as much as 1.8 percent to 737 euros and were priced at 733.97 euros 
as of 11 a.m. in Paris. Less than 5 percent the stock trades as non-
voting investment certificates. The securities have climbed 51 
percent in the past six months, valuing the company at 26 billion 
euros ($34 billion). 

Bidding Rivals 

The French company bid in December to develop the Angela uranium 
deposit in central Australia against 40 rivals including Cameco Corp. 
of Canada, the world's biggest uranium producer, Portella said in the 
interview on Feb. 15. 

Uranium prices reached $75 a pound on Feb. 14, according to data from 
Metal Bulletin Plc, buoyed by delays to Cameco's Cigar Lake project 
in Canada, in which Areva has a stake. 

Rising prices have helped spur acquisitions in the industry, 
including SXR Uranium One Inc.'s agreement Feb. 12 to buy UrAsia 
Energy Ltd. for $3.1 billion. SXR wants to develop the Honeymoon mine 
in Australia and is seeking more deals. Australia's Paladin Resources 
Ltd. last year bought smaller rival Valhalla Uranium Ltd. for A$174 
million, while Canada's Denison Mines Inc. agreed to acquire 
Australia's OmegaCorp Ltd. for A$170 million. 

Sinosteel Corp., China's second-biggest iron ore trader, is among 
companies that have applied to explore for uranium in the Northern 
Territory, the company said on Feb. 13. 

Areva expects to more than triple worldwide spending on uranium 
exploration to about 50 million euros in 2008 from 15 million euros 
in 2005. Production should increase to 12,000 metric tons by 2010, 
Portella said. 

``We want to be much more active, and Australia is part of this 
strategy to develop our exploration work,'' he said. 

Areva-Northern Alliance 

Areva last week formed an alliance with Northern Uranium Ltd., its 
first with an Australian explorer, taking over management of 
Northern's undeveloped Gardiner-Tanami Super project in Western 
Australia and the Northern Territory. 

``We will try to have more relationships with Australian explorers 
and miners,'' Portella said. ``We can assist some explorers to bring 
their assets to production.'' 

Australia holds 40 percent of the world's known uranium reserves, yet 
supplies just 23 percent of global demand because of bans on new 
mines in all but one of the eight states and territories. The Liberal-
National coalition federal government is trying to get state 
governments, all controlled by the opposition Labor Party, to drop 
the ban. 

The Northern Territory is the only region of Australia where uranium 
mines can be developed as the federal government took over authority 
for approvals there in 2005. Labor's policy banning new mines is due 
to be reviewed in April, supported by South Australian Premier Mike 
Rann. 

`Stake a Claim' 

``Australia's got the largest share of reserves in the world and if 
you're a serious uranium company, and Australia's open for business 
again to some degree, then you need to at least stake a claim here,'' 
said Gavin Wendt, senior resources analyst at Fat Prophets Funds 
Management in Sydney. ``Overseas companies such as Areva seem to be 
banking on a change of heart by the authorities, they're prepared to 
play a waiting game.'' 

South Australia and the Northern Territory are the two regions in 
Australia where political leaders are most supportive of uranium 
mining, said Kent Grey, Adelaide-based head of the uranium focus 
group at lawyers Minter Ellison. 

Aboriginal Opposition 

Areva's most advanced project in Australia is the Koongarra deposit 
in the Northern Territory, which is stalled due to opposition from 
local indigenous groups. Koongarra is located near Energy Resources 
of Australia Ltd.'s Ranger uranium mine, the country's largest. The 
Aboriginal Northern Land Council vetoed development of Koongarra in 
2000, resulting in a five- year moratorium on talks on development. 

Areva plans to re-start talks this year with Aboriginal groups as it 
seeks agreement for a project. It will use the example of Niger in 
west Africa, where local people are employed at mines, Portella said, 
declining to estimate the cost of the project. 

``We will present our project and we will try to explain what we want 
to do,'' Portella said. ``This will be through relationships that we 
have to build with Aboriginal groups in this area, and definitively 
they will be involved in this mining development.'' 

Koongarra, found in 1970, holds about 14,500 tons of uranium oxide, 
the Melbourne-based Uranium Information Centre says on its Web site. 
It lies 3 kilometers (1.9 miles) from Nourlangie Rock, an Aboriginal 
rock art site and tourist area, and development is opposed by 
environmental groups including Greenpeace. 

More Projects 

In the meantime, Areva is seeking more projects in Australia as its 
other deposits are more than 10 years away from possible development, 
Portella said. 

Areva's proposal to the Northern Territory government to develop the 
Angela deposit, south of Alice Springs, envisages committing to a 
mine in three years, Portella said. Cameco, Energy Resources, 
Heathgate Resources, owner of Australia's operating Beverley mine, 
and Paladin are among rival bidders, he said. 

``I am here with the experience that I have to lead a big push in our 
exploration activity here in Australia,'' Portella said. ``We hope we 
will have many more programs very soon.''
----------------

DTE faces nuclear fuel deadline

FRENCHTOWN TOWNSHIP - DTE Energy Co. faces a deadline for dealing 
with the mounting problem of storing spent nuclear fuel from its 
Fermi 2 reactor in southeastern Michigan.

In about three years, the Detroit-based utility will run out of room 
in a fuel storage pool next to the reactor vessel and expects it will 
have to store the fuel bundles on the Fermi plant's grounds in heavy 
concrete and steel casks designed to contain the radiation.

"We have received some bids from a number of vendors and those are 
under evaluation," DTE spokesman John Austerberry told The Monroe 
Evening News. "We're also looking at the option of forming alliances 
with other plants to obtain the storage containers."
  
Storage of spent nuclear fuel has been a controversial issue at 
plants across the country due to environmental and security concerns.

DTE will begin a $9 million "re-racking" of Fermi's fuel pool this 
month, allowing a tighter pack of the spent fuel assemblies to extend 
the pool's capacity to 2010. It will be the second time the plant has 
re-racked the pool.

The federal government initially vowed to take used fuel off the 
hands of utilities with nuclear plants and store it deep underground 
in Nevada's Yucca Mountain. But that plan is years behind schedule, 
due to planning, political and safety concerns.

DTE officials have said that because of the buildup of waste at other 
nuclear plants, the chances of any Fermi waste ever being transported 
to Yucca Mountain are slim.

Spent fuel already is stored in casks at Consumers Energy's Big Rock 
plant near Charlevoix, the Palisades plant near South Haven and more 
than two dozen other locations around the country.
--------------

Activists protest Rosatom´s plans to build new nuclear power plants

 "We are for a non-nuclear Kalinigrad" said activists as they sent 
their atomic idea to Moscow. Alexei MilovanovRelated articles
Rosenergoatom chief: Construction of second Kola NPP `unprofitable´ 
Russia ready to build nuclear plants without an ecological "good-to-
go" stamp Life-span extension of Russian reactors causes concern in 
Europe Lithuania’s Ignalina NPP begins the road to shut down Related 
news
Russia constantly revising its nuclear reactor construction program 
Lithuania to be late with Ignalina NPP closure Environmentalists held 
a visually dramatic protest near the Regional Government building of 
the densely populated Russian enclave of Kaliningrad last week in 
order to draw public attention to plans to build a nuclear power 
plant (NPP) there. 

The environmentalists, led by the anti-nuclear group Ecodefence! 
insisted last week that the Federal Atomic Energy Agency (Rosatom´s) 
notion of using the Kaliningrad Region - which is separated from 
mainland Russia by Latvia, Belarus and Lithuania - as "a site for the 
development of the nuclear-energy sector" will benefit only Russia´s 
nuclear utility, Rosenergoatom. The only thing that local citizens 
will get, said the activists, is a threat to their lives and health, 
and the well being of their society and environment.

During the protest, a "working" model of the power-generating unit of 
a nuclear power plant was placed next to the regional government 
building. The model, which was more than 4.5 meters long and 2.5 
meters high, was equipped with a pipe emitting pungent, orange smoke. 
The side of the giant model was inscribed with an address - Moscow, 
White House - in reference to the building housing President Vladimir 
Putin´s administration. 

A half an hour after the start of the protest, the mock-up of the 
"Kaliningrad NPP" released its last puff of smoke, signifying the 
environmentalists´ hope that their model nuke plant will be the first 
and last "nuclear" polluter in the area. 

The protest was prompted by remarks made last week by the deputy head 
of Rosenergoatom, Aleksandr Apkaneev, who announced that "the 
Kaliningrad Region is being considered as a site for the development 
of the nuclear-energy sector, in particular, the construction of an 
NPP."

 Alexei Milovanov 

According to representatives of Ecodefense!, the construction of 
nuclear facilities in the Kaliningrad Region would create a number of 
hitherto unknown threats to the region´s citizens. First, the 
functioning of an NPP and the accompanying plants necessary for the 
NPP´s nuclear cycle will mean a constant risk of radioactive 
contamination in the region and pose a danger to the lives and health 
of its citizens.

"Without any consultations with the residents of the Region, 
representatives of Rosenergoatom brazenly announce their intentions 
to bless Kaliningraders with a nuclear power plant," said Alexandra 
Koroleva, co-chairperson of Ecodefense! and the head of the 
organization´s Kaliningrad office. 

"But the construction of an NPP in the leading region in Russia in 
terms of population density is not only foolish, it is also a 
violation of the rights of citizens to a clean environment." 

The protest in Kaliningrad was the first of a number of similar 
actions planned by environmentalists in various cities in Russia in 
connection with the Russian Federal Atomic Energy Agency, or 
Rosatom´s, plans to build 10 new nuclear power-generating units by 
2015.

Energy dependence or energy security?
Lithuania´s Ignalina nuclear power plant will be completely 
dismantled by 2009 - as per the conditions of Lithuania´s membership 
in the European Union (EU). But while Russia´s neighbours are 
escaping from one dangerous facility in the region, Russia is 
planning to build a Kaliningrad NPP, presenting a new host of nuclear 
dangers. One example will be an increase in nuclear fuel transports. 

In order for the prospective Kaliningrad NPP to function, Russian-
made nuclear fuel will have to be transported across what are now the 
international borders surrounding former Soviet republics. Because 
transporting fuel is a dangerous part of the nuclear cycle, there is 
no guarantee that Kaliningrad´s neighbors will agree to provide a 
transit corridor for shipments.
 
Alexei Milovanov 

While the activist´s nuclear power plant was giving up the ghost 
outside the Kaliningrad Regional Government building, a government 
meeting was taking place inside, during which Regional Governor 
Georgy Boos threw his support behind building the Kaliningrad NPP. He 
said it would be profitable for a number of reasons" at present, the 
Kaliningrad enclave is not able to independently fulfill its own 
energy needs. The deficit has been made up by energy imports from 
Russia proper flowing via Lithuania. Once the Ignalina NPP is closed, 
these energy imports will no longer be possible. 

"We are troubled by this, as is the Government of the Russian 
Federation, and several possibilities are currently being considered 
to create our own power-generating facility in the region. This 
includes the development of small-scale power generation and the 
construction of a second TETs-2 thermoelectric power plant, as well 
as an NPP," Boos said.

"While the second option is preferable, its drawback is the lack of 
natural gas flowing into the region and the higher cost of generated 
electricity," noted the governor. "An NPP produces cheaper 
electricity that could not only cover the region´s needs for the long-
term future, but could also be exported to neighboring countries."

Last week, Rosenergoatom was forced to announce that it was 
abandoning its plans to build the second phase of the Kola NPP 
specifically because of considerations about its lack of 
profitability, and to announce that nuclear energy is certainly not 
cheap, even where there is a working NPP. It is difficult to imagine, 
therefore, how the production of nuclear energy could turn out to be 
less expensive when starting from scratch, as Boos asserted. 

In addition, the price of uranium is currently increasing. As 
environmentalists have pointed out, Rosatom will begin to feel the 
pinch of lacking uranium resources in about 2010 to 2015 in light of 
Russia´s uranium export contracts and in conjunction with how quickly 
its own nuclear energy development plans bear out. As a consequence, 
Russia will have to purchase uranium on foreign markets, driving up 
the cost of nuclear energy. 

Aside from the dangers and costs of delivering nuclear fuel to the 
Kaliningrad enclave, environmentalists are troubled by the 
disposition of the resultant spent nuclear fuel (SNF) from the 
proposed plant. If the plant is built, though, Boos said there was 
not question that the SNF would be shipped out. 

"Concerning the disposal of waste, spent raw materials will, of 
course, be exported," he said. "For the storage and reuse of waste, 
specialized facilities are needed that don´t exist in Kaliningrad, 
and there are no plans to build any. In Russia, however, they do 
exist."

Representatives of neighbouring countries spoke out against the 
building of the Kaliningrad NPP during a meeting of the Environment 
Committees of the Nordic Council and the Baltic Assembly in 
Daugavpils in Latvia.

In a statement issued by the Nordic Council, Saulius Vytas Piksrys of 
Lithuania´s Atgaja NGO, said: "Non-governmental ecological movements 
are against the nuclear power plant because it is an extremely dirty 
and dangerous energy source."

He was joined in his negative assessment of nuclear energy by former 
Latvian Prime Minister Indulis Emsis who said that "nuclear power was 
a form of energy that belongs to the past," according to the 
statement. Emsis added that nuclear power plants are attractive 
targets for terrorists. 

Danish Member of Parliament Kristin Touborg Jensen, reminded the 
gathering about the EU's recent energy strategy which includes an 
emphasis on alternative forms of energy.

Asmund Kristoffersen, a member of Norwegian Parliament and chair of 
the Nordic Council´s Environment Committee, has also issued extremely 
critical statements on nuclear power in the past.

Peaceful atoms and peaceful people
As is customary, Felix Alekseev, an honorary environmentalist of 
Russia and deputy chairperson of the regional parliament´s Committee 
on Agriculture, Land Use, and Natural Resources, gave activists his 
own instructions: "Instead of having meetings, you should be asking 
for the development of truly environmentally friendly, economical 
sources of energy. If an NPP were to be such a source, [and if] there 
were full guarantees of safety, then why not?"

Following the protest, participants called a cargo truck to transport 
their mock nuclear power plant to Moscow. Getting to the heart of the 
matter, the driver of the truck expressed his own opinion regarding 
the problem: "Do they want to have a second Chernobyl here? So we´ll 
later give birth to mutants?"

According to Russian legislation, the construction of especially 
dangerous facilities, including nuclear facilities, is forbidden in 
places where the majority of the population is against such 
construction. As experience has shown, the population of regions 
where nuclear facilities already exist is strongly against the 
construction of new facilities. In December 2006, for example, 89 
percent of those surveyed in public-opinion polls were against the 
building of the second phase of the Kola NPP.

On the eve of the Kaliningrad protest, the local television station 
Kaskad conducted its own quick poll during a programme on the plans 
to build a Kaliningrad NPP. The results showed that, of the 800 
viewers who had a chance to respond, 456 said they were not in favor 
of the plans. At first glance, this is not much of an opposition - 
less than 60 percent. It is important to remember, however, that 
until now, Rosatom has been developing its plans for Kaliningrad in 
an atmosphere of secrecy and has not announced them to the public.

Even for Oksana Aryutova, a correspondent from the Kaliningrad 
newspaper "Kaskad," who last month asked representatives of 
Rosenergoatom in about the possibility of building a nuclear power 
plant in the Kaliningrad Region, "their affirmative response was like 
thunder in a clear sky." According to Aryutova, she had previously 
"regarded such a possibility ... as science fiction."

In addition, it should not be forgotten that the residents of the 
region are always being fed a bitter pill about the region´s energy 
deficit and energy dependence, and it is recommended that they 
swallow this with a sweet syrup of confirmations about the safety and 
low cost of nuclear energy. Moreover, these confirmations are based 
mainly on proof by contradiction: mineral resources are also 
environmentally unfriendly, and wind power and hydroelectricity are 
incapable of being used on an industrial scale. 

"When we spent four hours on the street, building this model NPP, 
passersby would say: `What? A nuclear power plant in Kaliningrad? 
It´s great that you´re speaking out against this! How can we join you 
and oppose this ourselves?´" Ecodefense´s Koroleva said.

"In the middle of February, we are planning to commission a public 
survey on this topic, so that our opinion is not, on the one hand, 
the opinion of a small group of people, and, on the other hand, so 
that it doesn´t turn out that we are speaking in the name of the 
region´s residents without their support," she continued. "We are 
also interested in the results, although we´re sure that the result 
will be just as I´m suggesting."
--------------

Japanese nuclear reactor shuts down -Kyodo

TOKYO, Feb 18 (Reuters) - A Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO) nuclear 
reactor in northern Japan automatically shut down early on Sunday 
after a suspected glitch in its radiation alarm system, Kyodo news 
agency quoted TEPCO as saying. 
TEPCO said it found no abnormal levels of radiation inside and 
outside the No. 4 reactor after the incident at the Fukushima No. 2 
power station, located about 210 km north of Tokyo, Kyodo said. 

TEPCO is investigating the incident and said the 1.1 million-kilowatt 
reactor, which was restarted on Friday after a regular inspection, 
was not likely to reach full output by the original planned date of 
this coming Friday, Kyodo said.
----------------

Utah Firm Envisions Big Roles for S.C.: Energy Solutions Sees Bright 
Future in Nuclear

Feb. 18--SNELLING -- Steve Creamer sat in an office building at a 
nuclear waste landfill here last week, chattering like a youngster at 
his first Major League Baseball game. 

Creamer, president of Energy Solutions of Utah, is convinced nuclear 
power can solve the world's energy needs. And he says Barnwell 
County's landfill is important to atomic power's resurgence. 

Creamer's company is lobbying the S.C. Legislature to extend the life 
of the landfill, but that is only a small part of his company's 
ambitions these days. 

Since Creamer and investment groups founded Energy Solutions a year 
ago, the company has gobbled up nuclear service businesses from 
Europe to South Carolina. 

Today, it owns contracts at most major federal atomic weapons 
complexes. 

In the Palmetto State, the company has: 

--Acquired BNG, a British company that has contracts at the Savannah 
River Site nuclear weapons complex near Aiken. 

--Said it will bid on Savannah River Site's new main operating 
contract against WSRC Inc., which has run the site for the government 
since 1989. The contract is expected to top $1 billion a year. 

--Received nearly $1 million from the federal government to study 
recycling nuclear fuel in Barnwell County. It's a controversial plan 
bashed by environmentalists as unsafe. Creamer says an S.C. recycling 
plant would be more than safe -- and employ 12,000, the equivalent of 
the work force at the Savannah River Site. 

--Acquired Duratek, owner of Barnwell County's low-level nuclear 
waste landfill, in a $400 million deal last year. 

Creamer said he's realizing a dream in building an atomic services 
company. 

"The nuclear industry is something that always fascinated me,'' 
Creamer said. "We basically have put together a solid company.'' 

Jack Harrison is an executive with Studsvik of Tennessee, a 
competitor of Energy Solutions. 

"They are a big company that's continually adding arms'' through 
acquisitions of other nuclear services companies, Harrison said of 
Energy Solutions. "They are an aggressive competitor.'' 

'GOOD CORPORATE NEIGHBORS' 

So far, South Carolinians know little about Energy Solutions, other 
than information in a few advertisements that ran on television 
stations last fall. 

But state leaders are learning. 

During the past year, the company has hired 10 lobbyists to advance 
its cause in South Carolina, as well as Tim Dangerfield, former chief 
of staff at the S.C. Department of Commerce. 

Creamer also has lunched with the governor's Nuclear Advisory 
Council. 

In 2006, a division of Energy Solutions contributed $3,500 to 
Democratic gubernatorial candidate Tommy Moore and $3,500 to the 
campaign of incumbent Republican Mark Sanford, who won re-election. 

State Rep. Skipper Perry, R-Aiken, said he met Creamer at a party the 
night before Sanford's inauguration last month. 

"They're spreading a lot of money around; they're trying to be good 
corporate neighbors,'' Perry said. 

On Thursday, state lawmakers introduced a bill to keep the Barnwell 
County low-level waste landfill open to the nation for another 15 
years, rather than closing it in 2008 to all but three states. 
Supporters say the state needs money generated by the landfill. 

Last month, Energy Solutions persuaded U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-
S.C., to speak at a customer conference in Utah. 

Graham's talk, relayed by satellite from Washington, looked at his -- 
and the Bush administration's -- interest in nuclear energy and fuel 
recycling. Graham said he told those attending the conference that 
nuclear power is a way to attack global warming and reduce the 
nation's dependence on foreign oil. 

"I told them now was the time to come to the administration and the 
Congress," Graham said. 

Graham, R-S.C., said he's impressed with Energy Solutions and 
Creamer, whom he met about a year ago. The company's push to recycle 
spent nuclear fuel could be a boon to the S.C. economy and help the 
nation, Graham said. 

"From what I know of the company, they're going to be very 
competitive; they have a great reputation out West,'' Graham said. "I 
was impressed with Steve (Creamer's) corporate vision. He sees a new 
industry developing in the United States that was not there 10 years 
ago because of politics.'' 

WHERE THE UTAH JAZZ PLAY 

Creamer's push to make Energy Solutions a national player doesn't 
surprise people who have dealt with him before. 

Once a lobbyist in Utah, Creamer is described as a smooth, 
intelligent businessman, adept at talking with policy makers. 

He's tried to foster good will and promote the company since Energy 
Solutions was formed. The company has purchased television ads in 
Utah to promote itself. Late last year, the company bought the naming 
rights to the Utah Jazz's basketball arena in Salt Lake City. 

"Energy Solutions Arena" now shows up regularly in sports pages 
across the country. Creamer said the new name has done wonders for 
his corporation's image in Utah. 

Creamer's political savvy, ad campaigns and business smarts have made 
Energy Solutions a major player in Utah public policy debates. The 
company recently persuaded the Utah Senate to approve a bill that 
critics say will help Energy Solutions expand its low-level waste 
landfill west of Salt Lake City. 

"Energy Solutions has an impressive dog-and-pony show, but it's 
important to look behind the curtain,'' said Vanessa Pierce, who 
heads Heal Utah, an environmental group that has battled Creamer. 
"You realize their driving force is profit. It's important that 
elected officials also hear concerns about health and safety.'' 

Claire Geddes, an outspoken critic of Energy Solutions in Utah, said 
the company has repaired its image with many people in Utah. 

The company became Energy Solutions in 2006, about a year after 
Creamer and investors bought the beleaguered Envirocare low-level 
waste corporation. Envirocare had been rocked by a scandal in which 
its owner paid off a government regulator. 

Energy Solutions has showered the public in Utah with television 
advertisements extolling its virtues, Geddes said. 

"You'd think they are curing cancer,'' Geddes said. "It's a very 
deceptive campaign to make people feel warm and fuzzy about nuclear 
waste.'' 

Creamer said his company runs environmentally safe landfills in both 
Utah and South Carolina. 

During his career, Creamer has worked as a principal in an array of 
business ventures across the West, ranging from hydropower production 
to toxic waste disposal. 

Some businesses were more successful than others. 

Creamer, for instance, has taken a beating for his involvement in 
construction and design of a Utah dam that later failed. The failure 
cost the state of Utah $11 million. Creamer says the failure was not 
his engineering firm's fault. 

Creamer also has angered other nuclear waste company executives. A 
former executive with Envirocare, who wanted to start a rival 
company, sued Creamer last year for $60 million. The lawsuit claims 
Creamer's company leaned on close friendships in government to gain a 
national waste disposal monopoly. Creamer said the allegations are 
groundless. 

Still, Creamer generally has done well since quitting Utah's state 
environmental agency to begin a consulting firm in the 1970s. 

In 2002, for instance, he sold a concrete products company he founded 
as part of a $227 million deal, according to news reports. 

RECYCLING AND SRS 

While the question of leaving Barnwell open is expected to produce 
lively debate in the Legislature, Energy Solutions already is making 
inroads on other parts of the nuclear business in South Carolina. 

In January, the company received a $963,000 federal grant to study 
nuclear fuel reprocessing at a site not far from its Barnwell 
landfill. The grant is one of three that Energy Solutions received to 
study reprocessing. 

The company's reprocessing plan would focus on a proposed Barnwell 
County reprocessing facility that was abandoned in the 1970s. It 
could become a $20 billion construction project that would produce 
12,000 jobs, Creamer said. 

Supporters say reprocessing would cut down on the amount of high-
level nuclear waste piling up around the country. Detractors say it's 
a technology that can produce weapons-grade byproducts. 

"It's a big deal,'' Creamer said. "The governor and the Legislature, 
if it's something they want to do, they'll win the race.'' 

Energy Solutions' S.C. expansion also has included acquiring 
contracts at the Savannah River Site, part of the company's purchase 
of BNG last year. The contracts were for about $125 million, about 10 
percent of total SRS contracts, according to WSRC, the site's prime 
contractor. 

Energy Solutions' Savannah River duties now include managing low-
level nuclear waste and hazardous waste. In some cases, that involves 
processing the waste or shipping it off site to other disposal areas, 
WSRC spokesman Dean Campbell said. 

Currently, Energy Solutions is collaborating with other contractors 
to build the Salt Waste Processing Facility, a factory to help clean 
up toxic atomic waste on the 310-square mile Savannah River Site. The 
facility is behind schedule but vital to the cleanup of high-level 
waste at Savannah River. 

In the meantime, Creamer plans to continue his push to let the public 
know about his company. 

He has helped launch school programs in Utah that examine nuclear 
energy and wants to do the same in South Carolina. It's all part of 
his master plan. 

"If people understand nuclear energy, they're not scared of it,'' he 
said. "They will understand that it is very safe, that you can't just 
make a bomb out of it or have another Three Mile Island (nuclear 
meltdown) because the safety precautions are so much more rigorous 
today.''
----------------

Iran rejects claims of delayed payments for Russian-built nuclear 
power plant 

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Top Iranian officials on Monday rejected claims 
that Tehran had been dragging its feet on payments for a Russian-
built nuclear power plant, criticizing Moscow of buckling under 
international pressure and prolonging the reactor's launch, the 
official news agency reported.
Russian officials on Monday said uranium fuel deliveries to the 
Bushehr nuclear plant in southern Iran and the reactor's launch could 
fall behind schedule because of Iran's delays in payment.

But Mohammad Saeedi, the deputy head of the Atomic Energy 
Organization of Iran, denied that Iran had been late making payments.

"Iran has had no delay whatsoever in making payments for the Bushehr 
nuclear power plant to the Russian ... company," Saeedi was quoted as 
saying by the news agency, IRNA.

Former powerful President Hashemi Rafsanjani criticized Russia for 
the delay in completing the Bushehr plant, saying Tehran expected 
Russia to prevent actions that deny Iran's nuclear rights, IRNA 
reported.

"We want Russia to finish completing the Bushehr power plant as soon 
as possible," IRNA quoted Rafsanjani as saying.

"Extraregional powers, through dominating international institutions, 
are trying to ignore Iran's definite (nuclear) rights. We expect our 
friends (Russia) to prevent such attempts," IRNA quoted Rafsanjani, 
who heads the Expediency Council, a powerful clerical, as saying.

The launching of the Bushehr plant has been delayed for several years 
on what Russia has said are technical reasons. Last year, Russia 
agreed to ship fuel to the plant in southern Iran by March 2007 and 
launch the facility in September, with electricity generation to 
start by November.

Saeedi said Tehran will come up with a solution "in the coming days" 
to avoid any excuses for a delay in the launch of the plant.

"To resolve part of the financial problems, which is basically 
related to the Russian company and not Iran, we will come up with a 
solution in the coming days," IRNA quoted Saeedi as saying.

Russia emphasizes that Iran has the right to a peaceful nuclear 
energy program, and Russian President Vladimir Putin and other 
officials have said repeatedly that Moscow would honor the Bushehr 
contract.

Putin's increasingly defiant posture toward the United States would 
make it highly unlikely that the Kremlin could opt out of the 
agreement, particularly now that U.S. concerns have been eased by an 
agreement obliging Iran to return spent fuel - which could 
potentially be used for a weapons program - to Russia.

In December, Russia supported a U.N. Security Council resolution 
imposing limited sanctions against Iran over its refusal to stop 
uranium enrichment, but the support came only after an initial 
proposal that would have imposed curbs on the Bushehr plant was 
dropped.

The United States and some allies claim Iran's nuclear program is 
aimed at developing nuclear weapons, while Tehran maintains it is 
only for generating electricity.

Iran has been keen to get the uranium fuel from Russia, but Russian 
officials said it would only be delivered six months before the 
plant's launch.
----------------

British nuke agency fined for waste leaks

EDINBURGH, Scotland, Feb. 19 (UPI) -- British nuclear regulators have 
been fined $275,000 for dumping toxic waste at a Scotland site and 
into area waterways. 

The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority was handed the fine for 
illegally dumping radioactive waste from the Dounreay site into a 
local landfill between 1963 and 1975. 

Dounreay, on the northern coast of Scotland, used to be Britain's 
main research and development center for fast reactors, though it is 
being decommissioned now. 

The UKAEA, which runs Dounrey, was also fined for flushing pieces of 
radioactive fuel into drains that led to Pentland Firth between 1963 
and 1984. 

While environmental groups say the fine was too lenient, Eleanor 
Scott, a member of the Scottish parliament, said she hopes "the fine 
will be seen in context, in that these were offences that took place 
some time ago and any offence that took place now would be treated in 
a far more punitive way." 

Scott did worry it wouldn't send a strong enough message and wanted 
enhanced environmental regulations, The Scotsman reports. 

UKAEA officials will unveil a cleanup plan in May, according to an 
agency press release. 

"The court today has passed judgement on the standards and practices 
of waste management more than a quarter of a century ago," said John 
Crofts, UKAEA safety director. "We accept that mistakes were made and 
regret those mistakes. We, too, share the view that this is an 
unacceptable legacy of the Dounreay experiment."

----------------------------------------------------------------
Sandy Perle 
Senior Vice President, Technical Operations 
Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc. 
2652 McGaw Avenue
Irvine, CA 92614

Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714 Extension 2306 
Fax:(949) 296-1144

Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ 
Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/